PART V CHAPTER IV THE JUDICIARY SUPREME COURT Article 124 provides fro establishment and consititution of Supreme Court Earlier, the strength of judges in the Supreme Court was 7 judges and one Chief Justice. In 2019. it was increased to 33 judges and Chief Justice of India (total 34). through The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act.2019. Every judge of the Supreme Court shall hold office until he attains the age of sixty-five years. In Article 124(2) provides that everty judge of teh Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President. The Chief Justice is appointed by the President with the consultation of such judges of Supreme Court or High Court. In appointement of other judges, the President shall always consult the Chief Justice of India. In S.P Gupta v/s Union of India (1982) also known as First Judges case). It was observed that the opinions of the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of High court were merely consultative and the power of appointement resides solely and exclusively with the Central Govt. This meant that executive had supremacy in the appointement of judges. The questions of process of appointment of judges of Supreme Court came to be considered in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v/s Union of India (1993) also known as 2nd Judges case. 2nd Judges case decision overruled the Supreme Court decision in S.P. Gupta's case In 2nd Judges case - the court held that in the matters of appointment of judges of Supreme Court and High Court, the C.J.I. should have primacy. Court further held that the appointment of Chief Justice of India should be made on the basis of seniority. In re Presidential Reference (1999) (also known as 3rd Judges case) the Supreme Court laid down certain propositions regarding appointment of Supreme Court Judges. The consultation process tob be adopted by the Chief Justice of India requires consultative of plurality of judges. With regard to the appointment of Supreme Court Judges and transfer of a High Court Judge, the Chief Justice of india should consult a collegium of four seniormost Judges of the Supreme Court. In regard to the appointment of High Court Judges, the collegium should be consist of Chief Justice of India and two senior - most judges. Law commission in its 121st Report in 1987 commission for appointment of Judges. In 2014, the Union Government set up. National Judicial Appointment Commission vide 99th Constitution Amendment, 2014 It amended Article 124(2). 127 and 128 inserted Articles 124-A, 124-B and 124C. Every judge of Supreme Court was to be appinted by the President on the recommindation of NJAC. Article 124-A provided for the constitution of National Judicial Appointments Commission. Article 122-B Laid down functions of the Commission. Article 124-C empowered the Parliament to regulate the procedure for appointments by making suitable law. In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v/s Union of India (2016) Supreme Court declared both the 99th constitutional Amendment as well as the NJAC Act, 2014 as unconstitutional and Void Qualification of Supreme Court Judges: Article 124(3) provides the following qualifications. (i) Person should be a citizen of India (ii) He has been atleast for five years a Judge of a High Court or two or more High Courts in succession. (iii) He has been for atleast 10 years an advocate of High Court or of two or more such courts in succession. (iv) He is, in the opinion of the President a distinguished jurist. Article 124(6) provides that every person appointed to be a Judge of Supreme Court shall, before he entirs upon his office, make and subscribe before the President some other person appointed in the behalf by him. A Judge of the Supreme Court shall be removed by an order of the President only on the ground of proved misbehaviour and incapacity. The order of the President can only be passed when it has been addressed to both Houses of Paliament in the same session. A notice of the motion for presenting and address for removal may be given by 100 members of the Lok Sabha or 50 mambers of the Rajya Sabha. The Speaker or Chairman may either admit the motion or refuse to admit the motion. If the motion is admitted, then the Speakers Chairman constitutes a committee consisting of a Supreme Court Judge, a Chief Justice of High Court and a distiguished jurist. Supreme Court in Sub-Committee of Judicial Accountability v. Union of India (1992) held that motion for removal of judges under Article 124 does not lapse with the dissolution of the House. Article 126 provides that anytime during the tenure of the Chief Justice of India, if he is absent and is not able to dispose of his duties or his office is vacant for any reason, then the acting Chief Justice will discharge the duties of the Chief Justice of India. Appointment of Ad hoc judges is provided under Articel 127. Article 129 provides that Supreme Court shall be Court of record and shall have powers of such a court including the power to punish for its contempt. Article 131 authorises Supreme Court to settle inter-governmental disputes. Special Leave Petition - Article 136 provides that Supreme Court may in its discretion grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence. or order in any case or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India. Power of Supreme Court under 136 is not affected by Articles 132,133,134 and 134 A. Narpat Singh v/s Jaipur Development Authority (2002) - The Supreme Court held that the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 is discretionary. It does not confer right to appeal on a party to litigation. Article 136 empowers the Supreme Court to hear appeals not only from the High Court but also from the subordinate courts if a situation demands. Supreme Court has the power to appeal even from an interlocutory order or interim orders. It was held in Kapil Mehra v. Union of India (2015) that where an SLP is dismissed with reasons, there is a marger of the orders of the court below with the orders of Supreme Court. Article 136(2) provides that special leave to appeal shall not be maintainable to any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or order any law relating to armed forces. Article 142 provides discretionary power to the Supreme Court. It states that the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any matter pending before it. In 2022, the Supreme Court used the power granted to it by Article 142 to warrant the release of A.G. Perarivalan, the assassination convict of former Prime Minister Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. Advisory Jurisdiction is provided under Article 143. In case of a question of law or fact or of public importance. The President may refer the question for the Advisory opinion of the court. In Re Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 Supreme Court reiterated that the Court may refuse to give its advisory opinion for strong and compelling reasons. Article 143(2) provides that if the President refers such matters which are excluded from the proviso of Article 131 for the Advisory opinion of the Supreme Court then the Court will be bound to give opinion on it. Power of review - Article 137 provides that subject to the provisions of any law made by the Paliament or any rule made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgement pronounced or order made by it. In Lily Thomas v/s Union of (2000) Supreme Court held that power of review can be exercised for correction of mistake and not to substitute a review. Curetive Petition is supported by Article 137 of the constitution. The concept of curative petition was introduced by Surpeme Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v/s Ashok Hurra (2002) Article 141 provides that the law declared by the Surpreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. Doctrine of 'Stare Decisis' evbisages that judical decisions have a binding force for the future This doctrine is a characteristic feature of English Common Law. It envisages that lower courts are cound by the decisions of higher courts. The whole judgment is not binding. only the ratio decided is binding. Obiter dicta are an observation made by the judge which is not essential for the dicision reached. Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Bhuyan v/s State of Orissa has insisted that tribunals should also follow the doctrine of stare decisis. Facts about Union Judiciary:Anna Chandy was the first woman judge of India. The first woman judge of the Supreme Court of India was Ms. Fathima Beevi. Supreme Court was constituted on 28th January, 1950. First Chief Justice of India - Harilal Jekisundas Kania. Current Chief Justice of India - Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud. He is the 50th Chief Justice of India. Longest Serving Chief Justice India - Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud (February 1978 - July 1985). Shortest - serving Chief Justice of India - Kamal Narain Singh (25 Nov. 1991 - 12 Dec. 1991).